message_list_chats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the non-obvious 'session.sync baseline + optional WS incremental' behavior, which hints at a possible open WebSocket connection when watch_secs > 0. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the nature of the output beyond the 'cid' reference, leaving gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and context ('拉取会话列表（左栏）'). It is concise and does not waste words, though the technical jargon (session.sync, WS, cid) may reduce accessibility. Still, it earns its place by packing substantial meaning into minimal length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, return values are defined elsewhere. The description provides the core purpose and sync mechanism, which is useful, but it does not clarify the watch_secs behavior or how cid is populated. For a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves some behavioral details unexplored.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'baseline' and 'incremental' which map conceptually to fetch_num and watch_secs, but it never explicitly defines either parameter or their defaults. The link between the mechanism and the actual parameters is left implicit, providing only weak guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states '拉取会话列表' (fetch chat list) and specifies the left column context, making it distinct from sibling tools like message_history, message_send, and message_watch which operate on individual messages. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context that this is the primary tool for loading the chat list in the left sidebar. It implies usage for listing conversations, while siblings handle message-level operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and left-column hint effectively guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.